1. Using ecosystem modelling to support assessment of Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital due to land-based mitigation *
Or: “Forests are more than sticks of carbon”
Prof. Dr. Almut Arneth
Division of Ecosystem-Atmosphere Interactions, KIT, IMK-IFU
*Quote from A. L. Jacob et al.
Nature 507, 306 (20 March 2014) doi: /507306c
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

2. Concept & definition
Natural Capital: Stock of natural resources (ie., carbon stored in a forest ecosystem).
Ecosystem services: Provided through the existence of NC (and their change in time) to human societies (ie., climate regulation through carbon uptake in forests).
Trade-offs: ie., biodiversity & habitat loss, pollution, water supply, food supply?
ESS: Support the assessment of land-based climate change mitigation on multiple ecosystem services
and how these affect societal needs through either synergies or trade-offs in land-based mitigation and adaptation.
Time dependence: relative contribution of different land-based mitigation changes through time
& needs to be factored in when assessing side-effects (trade-off, win:win)
Carpenter et al., 2009
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

3. Assessment of land resources in science and policy
Science literature
Policy (governance) literature
Trade-offs: ie., biodiversity & habitat loss, pollution, water supply, food supply?
ESS: Support the assessment of land-based climate change mitigation on multiple ecosystem services
and how these affect societal needs through either synergies or trade-offs in land-based mitigation and adaptation.
Time dependence: relative contribution of different land-based mitigation changes through time
& needs to be factored in when assessing side-effects (trade-off, win:win)
Network-analysis of policy vs. scientific literature suggest that important topics are covered by both groups, but with very different emphases.
Bermans et al., in rev.
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

4. What do ESS have to do with governance?
Global governance, including governance of our environment, is a must for achieving sustainable development.
Scientific underpinning of e.g., internationally agreed, global assessments, and local decission making of ecosystem response to e.g., climate mitigation
Trade-offs: ie., biodiversity & habitat loss, pollution, water supply, food supply?
ESS: Support the assessment of land-based climate change mitigation on multiple ecosystem services
and how these affect societal needs through either synergies or trade-offs in land-based mitigation and adaptation.
Time dependence: relative contribution of different land-based mitigation changes through time
& needs to be factored in when assessing side-effects (trade-off, win:win)
Plasky & Segerson, 2009
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

5. Typical trade-offs w.r.t. land-use for climate policies
Promotion of bioenergy
Other issues related to sustainability
Reforestation/afforestation
Depends on type & location of forest
General climate mitigation measures
Reduce benefits? (i.e. CO2 fertilisation)
How can we better understand climate-regulating services in relation to other ecosystem services, esp. changing through time?
Dynamic global vegetation models
Simulate vegetation distribution and ecosystem processes (natural and managed) in response to environmental changes
State of ecosystem, natural capital and (some) ecosystem services
Changes regarding location and timing
ie., biodiversity & habitat loss, pollution, water supply, food supply?
ESS: Support the assessment of land-based climate change mitigation on multiple ecosystem services
and how these affect societal needs through either synergies or trade-offs in land-based mitigation and adaptation.
ESS and DGVM: mostly provisioning, regulating and supporting services!
Time dependence: relative contribution of different land-based mitigation changes through time
& needs to be factored in when assessing side-effects (trade-off, win:win)
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

6. Example 1: Trade-off climate mitigation & CO2 fertilisation on yields
Ensemble projections from six global crop models & five climate models
Compare no vs. large climate-change mitigation cases (RCP 8.5, vs. RCP 2.6), assess climate as well as atm. CO2 effects  Avoided damage vs. lost potential
Combined maize, wheat, soy, rice; end of 21st century
Regionally very diverging patterns of ecosystem response to combined climate and CO2 effects – need to be considered when assessing impacts of climate mitigation policy
Analysis under given management - adaptation only considered in limited way (no change in crop production area; some change in eg., sowing dates)  no land use change
 Developing internationally agreed assessments of mitigation effects on ecosystems must bridge natural and socioeconomic knowledge
Müller et al., 2015
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

7. Ecosystem & NC change in response to land-use change
Use LUC idealised (!) projections from an IAM:
maximise BECCS
maximise afforestation/avoid defor.
(ADAFF)
reference case (REF)
(based on RCP 2.6)
Fraction crop & pasture
Year ( )
%-change in land-cover (2100 vs. 2000)
in prep.
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

8. LUC and effects on climate-regulation services
%-change in vegetation C-pool
(rel. to total C; 2100 vs. 2000)
From a C-cycle (climate service) perspective (and for different land-cover types):
Different scenarios of land cover change affect above-ground and total C-pools substantially
Increase in C-pools in all scenarios: CO2 fertilisation
Largest C increase in afforestation scenario
Afforestation and other ecosystem services?
%-change in total C-pool
(2100 vs. 2000)
in prep.
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

9. LUC and effects on other ecosystem properties and services
Climate; some effects on
habitat diversity
REF
Irrigation, flood, water quality
Air quality & climate
BECCS
ADAFF
%-change, various (2100 vs. 2000)
Response mostly to area change
(no assumptions about intensification
or other technological changes to yields)
Changes in various ecosystem properties: beyond climate services (global total, not per different land-cover types):
Land-based mitigation will always also affect other important NC and ecosystem services (yields, ET/cooling, runoff/flood and irrigation)
Open question: how would biodiversity scenarios interact with natural capital/ESS?
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

10. Forests are more than sticks of carbon – and ecosystems are more than carbon dumps
Different ecosystems have very different functioning, natural capital and derived ESS
Side-effects of land-based mitigation  identify & manage unexpected outcomes (trade-offs but also co-benefits)
Challenge: governance of land management that enhances both climate regulation, other sustainability goals, and biodiversity
Quote is from Aerin L. Jacob, Sarah Jane Wilson & Simon L. Lewis
Nature 507, 306 (20 March 2014) doi: /507306c
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

11. Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

12. Example 2: NC change in response to land-use change
Use LUC stylised (!) projections
from an IAM:
maximise BECCS
maximise afforestation/avoid defor.
reference case
(based on RCP 2.6)
BECCS
Reference
Fraction crop & pasture
ADAFF
Year ( )
%-change in land-cover (2100 vs. 2000)
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

13. Concept & definition
Natural Capital: Stock of natural resources (ie., carbon stored in a forest ecosystem).
Ecosystem services: Provided through the existence of NC (and their change in time) to human societies (ie., climate regulation through carbon uptake in forests).
Trade-offs: ie., biodiversity & habitat loss, pollution, water supply, food supply?
ESS: Support the assessment of land-based climate change mitigation on multiple ecosystem services
and how these affect societal needs through either synergies or trade-offs in land-based mitigation and adaptation.
Time dependence: relative contribution of different land-based mitigation changes through time
& needs to be factored in when assessing side-effects (trade-off, win:win)
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

14. Example: NC change in response to warming
Emission
reduction pledges
(3.5 deg.warming)
Business as usual
emissions growth
(5 deg. warming)
2-degree
target
Tropical
rainforest
Tropical
rainforest
Ind. strength of change,
not its direction
(positive or negative)
Temperate
grassland
Boreal forest
Ostberg et al., 2013
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

15. Criticism
From ecosystem structure/function to NC and ES is anthropocentric; implicitly restricted to monetary values; intrinsic value of natural world?
Quote is from Aerin L. Jacob, Sarah Jane Wilson & Simon L. Lewis
Nature 507, 306 (20 March 2014) doi: /507306c
 Requires collaboration of economists, social scientists and natural scientists to ensure sound assessment of NC, ES and their valuation (monetary and non-monetary).
 Maintenance of NC and the derived ES: requires maintenance of ecosystem functioning, their structure and diversity  fundamental for sustainable management.
Figure from SEEA, Ch. 5
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty

16. XXXX Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty
Plasky & Segerson, 2009
Prof. Dr. Max Mustermann | Name of Faculty